Says antitrust action against Google "defies all logic."

Share this story

A Democratic congressman who played a leading role in the fight against the Stop Online Piracy Act earlier this year has taken up a new cause: shielding Google from antitrust scrutiny. In a strongly worded letter to Federal Trade Commission chairman Jon Leibowitz, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) praised Google's contribution to the nation's economy. He warned Leibowitz that if the FTC does choose to initiate an antitrust case against Google, Congress might react by curtailing its regulatory authority.

"At a time when the national economy continues to stagnate, it's not clear to me why the FTC should be focusing on a product that consumers seem very happy with, search engines," Polis wrote. "While Google is surely a big company and an important service in peoples' lives, my constituents also use a variety of competing services." To pursue antitrust action in this "hyper-competitive" environment, he argued, "defies all logic."

Polis drew a parallel to the debate over SOPA. In that case, he wrote, policymakers tried to "overregulate Internet content," but "consumers revolted" and stopped the proposal. He urged the FTC to "tread carefully."

Indeed, Polis hinted that if the FTC didn't heed his warning, it risked having its wings clipped by Congress. "Application of anti-trust against Google would be a woefully misguided step that would threaten the integrity of our anti-trust system, and could ultimately lead to Congressional action resulting in a reduction in the ability of the FTC to enforce critical anti-trust protections," Polis wrote.

Details of the FTC's ongoing investigation have yet to be released. But a final decision on whether to pursue a case against Google is expected before the end of the year.

While Polis seems to be a staunch Google supporter, some other members of Congress have been more critical of the company. At a hearing last year, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Mike Lee (R-UT) both asked tough questions of Google's Eric Schmidt. On the other hand, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) both seemed more supportive of the search giant, which has major offices in their respective states.

145 Reader Comments

I'm all for not going through with the anti-trust against Google, but the good representative from Colorado needs to shut up and sit down. Curtailing the FCC's regulatory powers hurts the consumers more than helping them.

While Google is a huge company I'm not sure I see it as a monopolistic trust - after all I could switch over to the Bing/Livemail universe today with about 5 minutes worth of effort. The only reason I don't is I find Google's product to be superior. So what here does the FTC see as worthy of investigation?

Not sure where this guy comes off so strongly defending Google. Anti-trust maybe ok to pursue if they're really locking out competitors in a way that the market cannot resolve on its own. Google may be trying to protect its own market, but I don't know of any huge barrier for another competitor to enter, such as Bing (yuck), Yahoo, Duckduckgo, etc.

As much as I'd hate to have Google hit with an anti-trust suit, this letter worries me. Not because it's trying to stop the FTC from investigating this, but because if this letter "works" and the investigation is dropped, my fear is that Google will get the idea that they are untouchable. That's how Microsoft felt when they were hit with anti-trust over the IE browser. I'd hate to see Google get into that same mindset as well.

As for the merits of the case against Google, I can't say whether it is true or not. When I search online, Google is my first (and more often than not) and only stop. So I couldn't say with certainty that Google was "preferring" their sites over other's sites. BUT, I wouldn't see it as a stretch if they did. While I love my Android phone and think that Google has done a lot of good for us, I still don't trust them either. Mostly because of their motto (or is it slogan?) of "Don't be evil".

Google is big and powerful but the bottom line I search on Google because it's the best, if it wasn't I could and would switch search engines without second thought.

This is much different from regular monopolies where there are mechanisms locking consumers in or competitors out. Google's power stems only from having the best product. That makes it hard to criticize it even when it wields some of that power.

You're not a monopoly when all your competitors are providing clearly inferior product. There are plenty of choices out there, but I've had Google as my homepage for years now and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

While Google is a huge company I'm not sure I see it as a monopolistic trust - after all I could switch over to the Bing/Livemail universe today with about 5 minutes worth of effort. The only reason I don't is I find Google's product to be superior. So what here does the FTC see as worthy of investigation?

What's been suggested in previous reporting is "whether Google manipulates its search results to ensure that its own services, such as YouTube, Google Maps, and Google Plus, appear above those of its rivals."

So as is typical in these cases, it's not whether Google has a near-monopoly on search but how they have used that advantage and whether it's given their other businesses (e.g. YouTube) an unfair advantage over competitors.

Companies that violate anti-trust laws generally are very large. This argument is totally silly. Google clearly has a dominant position in search in the US. If they leverage that position in an anti-competitive way anti-trust laws must be applied, no matter what personal feelings people might have about Google or its services. I think a lot of people who use Google do not realize how its makes its money, if everyone really understood I think public opinion would closely match Facebook's.

I am sure if you were in the ad business on the internet Google could be seen as crushing or anti-competitive. The question is are they objectively so.

I don't get it. If the FTC wants to go after anti-competitive behavior, why not the cable companies? Almost all of them are monopolies in their markets. I only have one choice for a non-dial-up ISP: Kabletown.

While Google is a huge company I'm not sure I see it as a monopolistic trust - after all I could switch over to the Bing/Livemail universe today with about 5 minutes worth of effort. The only reason I don't is I find Google's product to be superior. So what here does the FTC see as worthy of investigation?

What's been suggested in previous reporting is "whether Google manipulates its search results to ensure that its own services, such as YouTube, Google Maps, and Google Plus, appear above those of its rivals."

So as is typical in these cases, it's not whether Google has a near-monopoly on search but how they have used that advantage and whether it's given their other businesses (e.g. YouTube) an unfair advantage over competitors.

I guess my question is how is this functionally distinct from a vendor offering me their house brand part before offering me their competitor's part. I'm still seeing both parts. I'm still seeing both results.

I don't get it. If the FTC wants to go after anti-competitive behavior, why not the cable companies? Almost all of them are monopolies in their markets. I only have one choice for a non-dial-up ISP: Kabletown.

While Google is a huge company I'm not sure I see it as a monopolistic trust - after all I could switch over to the Bing/Livemail universe today with about 5 minutes worth of effort. The only reason I don't is I find Google's product to be superior. So what here does the FTC see as worthy of investigation?

Probably some corporate interests who have a vested interest in cutting Google down a notch driving this.

Possibly Apple, MS, the Incumbent telecom industry, the media industry. You name just about any entrenched industry in America and they probably feel threatened by the disruptive capabilities of Google, Android, and Google's other offerings.

I'm all for investigations into any large corporation for violations of antitrust laws but I struggle to see Google passing the tests for a monopoly, at least as far as search is concerned. Google does meet several of the typical characteristics and behaviors of a monopoly but fails to meet the high barrier to entry and lack of substitute services.

Maybe they'll get hit for conglomoration monopoly, but I can't think of any market in which they have no competitors, high barriers to entry, or no substitute goods/services.

I'll start by admitting that I haven't read the full complaint, so I may be talking out of my hat... but:

I personally give Bing a try once or twice a month, to see whether they really are delivering the awesome experience they claim. What I get is... a pretty background (which pisses me off 'cause it's distracting and slows things down), more sponsored results than I'm used to, and almost always a longer process of winnowing through results to find what I actually want. I then switch back to Google and try the same search; nine times out of ten, the result I'd previously decided was what I needed (and which Bing had returned near the bottom of the first page, or even on the second) is at or near the top of Google's results.

And yet I've heard on several occasions (e.g. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-02/tech ... _s=PM:TECH) that Bing is actually using Google's results - and then applying their own special sauce to screw things up. That doesn't sound to me like Google is exercising its monopolistic power...

Google is big and powerful but the bottom line I search on Google because it's the best, if it wasn't I could and would switch search engines without second thought.

This is much different from regular monopolies where there are mechanisms locking consumers in or competitors out. Google's power stems only from having the best product. That makes it hard to criticize it even when it wields some of that power.

I wonder if that's how some people feel about Apple? I only bring this up because it seems like in some people's minds, Google can do no wrong, while Apple can do every wrong.

I would take the stance that if a congress member is actively trying to stop an FTC antitrust investigation that there is something being hidden that would warrant the investigation.

If a company is not engaging in anti-competitive behaviour, then it should welcome an FTC investigation to show how it is able to compete, and dominate, without having to resort to legally questionable activities.

I clicked the link expecting an infographic based on that infamous "leave Britney alone" video. A little disappointed.

Quote:

At a time when the national economy continues to stagnate, it's not clear to me why the FTC should be focusing on a product that consumers seem very happy with, search engines

Ehm... because they suspect them of doing something illegal? I like Google too, and if I have to find a different search engine and move my mail somewhere else, that's bad, but having good products is no license to break the law.

What's been suggested in previous reporting is "whether Google manipulates its search results to ensure that its own services, such as YouTube, Google Maps, and Google Plus, appear above those of its rivals."

So as is typical in these cases, it's not whether Google has a near-monopoly on search but how they have used that advantage and whether it's given their other businesses (e.g. YouTube) an unfair advantage over competitors.

This is worth repeating. Monopoly abuse doesn't always mean you don't have competitors. It's all about how they use the power of having an overwhelming marketshare.

Additionally, everyone seems to be acting like the FTC is voting to break up Google. The only action they have taken is a vote as to whether or not they should investigate charges. Even if they press charges against Google, there will be a long process in which Google gets to defend themselves.

So the ability to draw = intelligence. We have a different definition of what make a person smart.

He's an incredibly observant individual, which is why he was capable of writing such pointed humor when he was doing that. He was also a pretty good baseball coach IME. He's probably not the smartest man in Washington, but he's up there. You just don't happen to agree with his political views, which is fine. Accusing the man of being stupid because he has political views you don't agree is why you're getting voted down.

Edit: I'm not sure what to think about the Congressman's letter to the FTC, honestly. I don't think Congress should be interceding just yet. If the FTC sanctioned Google (incorrectly in the view of the Congressman) then the letter might be more timely.

You're not a monopoly when all your competitors are providing clearly inferior product. There are plenty of choices out there, but I've had Google as my homepage for years now and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Just because Google earned its monopoly by providing a superior product doesn't mean it isn't a monopoly. Also, even though there are still alternative search engines, that doesn't mean Google isn't a monopoly. Finally, even if search has fewer barriers to lock-in users or keep out new entrants than other markets, that doesn't mean Google isn't a monopoly.

The fact is, by controlling some 85% of search engine share, Google enjoys tremendous incumbent advantage and unprecedented control over the flow of information on the internet. This position deserves very close regulatory scrutiny. If Google were permitted to start abusing its position, the consequences could be devastating for all society.

Google's a big boy and a healthy titan of technology. If it's innocent, it can afford good representation to clear its name. If it's guilty, it can afford to pay the consequences and learn its lesson. What we can't afford is to just stand by and assume that Google will never abuse its incredible power over the internet.